AG Szpunar: No residency-based discrimination for direct debit payments

On the 2^nd of May, AG Szpunar published his Opinion on Case C-28/18 Verein für Konsumenteninformation v Deutsche Bahn AG. This is a case concerning payments within the SEPA area, so not on consumer protection legislation. Nevertheless, if the Court follows the AG opinion, this case can have a significant impact on the interests of consumers.

The opinion starts with setting the scene around residency requirements pointing out that while residency requirements are usually seen as discriminatory within the context of the internal market that view is limited to the relationship between public and private entities. In contrast to that, the position on residency requirements in the context of private relationships is a lot less clear. The nature of conditions placed in private relationships is at the centre of this case. 

The Verein für Konsumenteninformation is an Austrian Consumer organisation which brought an action against Deutsche Bahn, the German train company. Deutsche Bahn in its website offer customers 2 different modes of payment, namely credit card, instant bank transfer or under the single euro payments area (SEPA) direct debit scheme, the latter being limited to those customers with a residence in Germany.

The Verein für Konsumenteninformation argued in its action in front of Austrian courts that Deutsch Bahn breached article 9(2) of Regulation No 260/2012 on direct debit payments in euro by requiring that only German residents are able to participate in the scheme.

This case went up to the Oberster Gerichtohof, the Supreme Court of Austria, which referred the following question:

‘Must Article 9(2) of Regulation No 260/2012 be interpreted to mean that the payee is prohibited from making payment under the SEPA direct debit scheme dependent on the payer’s place of residence being in the Member State in which the payee also has his establishment (residence), if payment in a different way, for example with a credit card, is also allowed?'

Article 9(2) of Regulation No 260/2012 states that  ‘a payee accepting a credit transfer or using a direct debit to collect funds from a payer holding a payment account located within the Union is not to specify the Member State in which that payment account is to be located, provided that the payment account is reachable in accordance with Article 3 [of that regulation’.

The main objective of regulation No 260/2012 is to establish a Single European Payment Area (SEPA), yet in some parts of it, such as notably the article in question, it is concerned also with the relationship between payees and payers and offers protection to payers (para 29).

As the AG notes, the fact that most persons in the EU hold a bank account in the country where they reside is undisputed. Therefore, requiring a payer to be resident in a certain Member State is therefore tantamount to specifying in which Member State a payment account must be located (para 30). Pursuant to this, the AG found that Deutsche Bahn’s requirement breached art. 9(2) (para 31).

The AG continues to address whether the breach of art. 9(2), and the subsequent restriction to the freedom of payment can be justified. The AG rejects the argument put forward by Deutsch Bahn that there is a danger of abuse associated with direct debit payments, thus making credit checks and their practice necessary and justified. He states that while the reasoning of Deutsche Bahn may be sensible from a commercial point of view, there is no provision of justification in art. 9(2) or in any other part of the Regulation and the introduction of such a justification would be a matter for the legislator rather than the court (paras 45-46).

As the AG points out, the regulation does not require traders to offer direct debit payments. However, he argues, when they do, they should be non-discriminatory (para 49). However, attention should be paid to not make it more favourable for traders to offer fewer modes of payment in order to avoid adhering to additional requirements. 

Overall, this is a welcome and well-written opinion that, if followed in the judgement, can produce tangible benefits for consumers in the EU, facilitating cross-border payments in the internal market. Still the views expressed in the Opinion can have an impact going beyond payments and beyond consumers to further a broader debate on the role and indeed the obligations of private actors in respecting the fundamental freedoms of the EU.

C-191/17 AG Tanchev on the notion of 'payment account'

Last week Advocate General Tanchev delivered a not very ‘consumer friendly’ opinion in case C-191/17 Budeskammer fur Arbeiter und Angestellt v ING-DiBa Direktbank Austria Nidererlassung der ING-DiBA AG. Referred by the Oberster Gerichtshof (Supreme Court of Austria) this case involves the the interpretation of Article 4 (14) of Directive 2007/64/EC on payment services in the internal market (PSD 1).

Representing consumer interests the Budeskammer fur Arbeiter und Angestellt brought an action against ING-DiBa Direktbank Austria alleging that the bank’s ‘Direkt-Sparen’  (‘direkt-savings’) product (referred to as online direct savings account) contains a large number of standard terms and conditions that are not compliant with the Austrian law transposing PSD1. Given the special nature of the financial product, the subject of the dispute became the scope of PSD1, i.e. whether this particular kind of account qualifies for a payment account within the meaning of PSD1.

Article 4 (14) PDS1 provides that a 'payment account' is an account held in the name of one or more payment service users which is used for the execution of payment transactions. The definition itself neither specially refers to nor specially excludes the particular product in question.

What is an online direkt savings account and how it works?

The online direct savings account is a particular kind of bank account. It is labelled as a savings account, i.e. that should be used for depositing money for saving purposes. however, access to this account is granted via online banking, enabling consumers to make deposits and withdrawals from the account. Any transfer however must be carried out  through another account called a reference account. The reference account must be a current account opened in Austria, but can be held by any Austrian bank, it does not have to be held with the same bank that holds the online direst savings account. A consumer is able to decide, without any restriction or notice when and in what amount the consumer transfers money between the online direct savings account and the reference account. 

Is the online savings account covered by PSD1?

Interpreting the provision in question in the context of other provisions of PSD1 (other definitions within Art. 4, Art. 2, and the Annex) and related EU legislation (Directive 2014/92/EU and Regulation 260/2012) AG Tanchev concluded that the particular product cannot be considered to be a payment account within the meaning of Article 4 (14) of PDS1, because this account does not involve ‘direct participation in payment transactions with third parties’. 

Our evaluation

Although AG Tanchev rightly said that the mere labeling of an account as a ‘savings account’ is not in itself an indication that the account does not constitutes a ‘payment account’ within the meaning of PSD1, what seems to have been determinative in his reasoning was that the online direct savings account is not intended to be used for transactions between the consumer (account holder) and third parties, essentially accepting the argument of the defendant bank. Whilst this may be true, if the account allows for  consumers to execute payment services consumers would surely deserve to have the same level of protection that belongs to users to payment accounts. According to AG Tanchev, this protection will be provided for consumers via the protection they enjoy buy the underlying, reference account. Whilst this may be correct, by the same token, applying a different regime for the two accounts creates uncertainty and opens a potential protection gap for consumers. In case of a future dispute, the bank  holding the online direct savings account would be able to  use the same argument as a shield against their liability; that the higher level of protection offered by PSD1 attached to the reference account does not apply the transaction executed though the online savings account, because the transaction was attached to that separate account and not to the reference account. The situation gets even more complicated leaving consumers with less access to redress when the two accounts are held by different banks.

At this instance we must agree with the EU Commission’s submission that argued against the restrictive approach in interpreting the scope of PSD1. The EU Commission stressed that the purpose of PDS1 is to confer protection on the users of payment services: as mentioned in recital 46 and in the articles of Title IV of PSD1. The accounts covered by PSD1 benefit from certain minimum regulatory requirements for the proper execution and processing of payment transactions, and such protection is denied to consumers in the event of a restrictive interpretation of the notion of a ‘payment account’ within the meaning of PSD1 (para 21).

Whilst the opinion involves the interpretation of PSD1, it remains relevant in the light of the current PSD2 that contains exactly the same provision in Article 4 (12) and seems to makes no special reference to the features of the product under scrutiny here.